Hi Nathaniel,
That sounds like it could work very well indeed!
Somewhat related only, for the inner loops I've been thinking whether
it might be possible to automatically create composite ufuncs, where
the inner loops are executed in some prescribed order, so that for
instance one could define
``
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote:
> My understanding of this is that the dtype will only hold the unit metadata.
> So that means units would propogate through calculations automatically, but
> the dtype wouldn't be able to manipulate the array data (in an in-place unit
> conv
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk
wrote:
> Hi Nathaniel,
>
> Thanks for the link. The plans sounds great! You'll not be surprised
> to hear I'm particularly interested in the units aspect (and, no, I
> don't mind at all if we can stop subclassing ndarray...). Is the idea
> that
That sounds somewhat puzzling as units cannot really propagate without
them somehow telling how they would change! (e.g., the outcome of
sin(a) is possible only for angular units and then depends on that
unit). But in any case, the mailing list is probably not the best case
to discuss this - rather
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Daniele Nicolodi
> > wrote:
> >
> >> is there a better way to write the dot product between a stack of
> >> matrices? In my case I need to compute
> >>
> >> y = A.T @ inv(B) @ A
> >>
> >> with A a 3x1 matrix and B a 3x3 matrix, N times, with N in the few
> >>
My understanding of this is that the dtype will only hold the unit
metadata. So that means units would propogate through calculations
automatically, but the dtype wouldn't be able to manipulate the array data
(in an in-place unit conversion for example).
In this world, astropy quantities and yt's
Hi Nathaniel,
Thanks for the link. The plans sounds great! You'll not be surprised
to hear I'm particularly interested in the units aspect (and, no, I
don't mind at all if we can stop subclassing ndarray...). Is the idea
that there will be a general way for allow a dtype to define how to
convert a
I would certainly use einsum. It is almost perfect for these use cases,
e.g.,
np.einsum('ki,kij,kj->k', A, inv(B), A)
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:38 PM Charles R Harris
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Daniele Nicolodi
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> is there a better way to write the dot p
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> I'll also be giving a lunch talk at BIDS tomorrow to let folks locally
> know about what's going on, which I think will be recorded – I'll send
> around a link after in case others are interested.
Here's that link: https://www.youtube.com
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Daniele Nicolodi
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there a better way to write the dot product between a stack of
> matrices? In my case I need to compute
>
> y = A.T @ inv(B) @ A
>
> with A a 3x1 matrix and B a 3x3 matrix, N times, with N in the few
> hundred thousands ra
Hello,
is there a better way to write the dot product between a stack of
matrices? In my case I need to compute
y = A.T @ inv(B) @ A
with A a 3x1 matrix and B a 3x3 matrix, N times, with N in the few
hundred thousands range. I thus "vectorize" the thing using stack of
matrices, so that A is a
11 matches
Mail list logo
